Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive73

IIHF.com citations

For those that aren't aware, the IIHF revamped their site a few days ago to be more "modern" (I'll note I am not a fan of this trend most sites are moving to, for a multitude of reasons not relevant here). A casualty of this update is that all their old links to news stories (and possibly tournament stats; I haven't checked) are no longer accessible. This is notable because many of our international-related pages, especially those pertaining to smaller countries, utilize those links. I've emailed the IIHF to see what their plan is, but am not sure I'll get a response. Either way I wanted to make sure this information was spread, so anyone who cares can archive the relevant links. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate if the information is lost. I contribute to many biographies on persons in international hockey. Flibirigit (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, that's my thoughts as well. Most of the lower-division countries and tournaments don't get much (any) coverage at all outside of IIHF.com, especially in English. I really hope they fix this. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Got a response from them already. They do have them archived on the site, but it is a pain to search through. However I found that they are still reachable with their old url, with some slight modification: simply delete the "www." and substitute "webarchive." and it should work. This is obviously not ideal, but at least the articles are still online and reachable. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if there is an easy way to find all of the URLs I have used from them. Flibirigit (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I could probably rig up something in AWB to get them fixed. Not sure when I can get to it being a holiday weekend. But I will see what I can do. If you can send me a copy of one that is broken and now working with your fix I will try to look tonight. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach), citations numbers 40 to 46. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Djsasso: any luck with the above? Flibirigit (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Completely slipped my mind. -DJSasso (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I was wondering. Flibirigit (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@Djsasso:, still busy? I haven't seen you online much lately. Flibirigit (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias:, I tried a few substitutions, and noticed that you also need to remove the "http://" or the "https://" as well. Flibirigit (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If you can show me exactly what has to change I can blow through them easily. Just when I tried back in october I couldn't get any to work and haven't had the time to look into it. IF you can give me a change this part to this part or something like that here or on my talk page I can quickly throw something together. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

(outdent)@Djsasso: So for an example, the old links began like this: "https://www." while the current link to said site is "http://webarchive. Everything after the "www." on old pages is the same. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a page with an old link on it. Or one where you changed it? Cause I am sure I switched a couple and they didn't show me a page. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Although thinking about it more it might not be as easy as I think cause I will end up having to check each link to make sure its a broken one. -DJSasso (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Djsasso: Please see Paul Thompson (ice hockey coach), citations numbers 40 to 46. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah those are the ones that pages wouldn't come up for me. I will try again. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's an archive address that works: http://webarchive.iihf.com/iihf-home/history/the-iihf/iihf-hall-of-fame/ Flibirigit (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Djsasso: are you back from vacation? Flibirigit (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Russia men's national ice hockey team

Anyone want to take a look at Russia men's national ice hockey team? I cannot edit there anymore and I keep getting reverted when I have been trying to make it more neutral and adding MOS edits, while simultaneously attempting to find sources non-English. There just seems to be a fair amount of WP:EDITORIAL or WP:PEACOCK comment and WP:NPOV issues. Yosemiter (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem there, is an out of nowhere IP, exhibiting ownership behavior. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

True, but I am also not perfect or that my version is necessarily better either. I do not claim to be a Euro hockey expert (far from it). I was simply trying to add clarification to the vague statements about records and remove some of the editorial bias. Perhaps one of our European editors like Sabbatino could help with fixing the claims made there. Yosemiter (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: I will take a look when I have time (possibly later today), because I am pretty busy in my life outside Wikipedia and have not edited regularly since 24 December 2018. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

RM: Ice resurfacer

A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Ice resurfacer, and your input would be welcome. Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving World Championship articles

A while back I apparently moved 1992 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships to 1992 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships, as the tournaments themselves are called "Ice Hockey World Championship (see the 2019 World Championship website for example. An IP has contested that, arguing that the others weren't moved. While true, I also haven't really bothered to deal with that, and now the initial move has been reverted, due to no discussion being made. I hope to resolve that here, and want to know the thoughts towards the names of the articles: should they be "World Ice Hockey Championship" or "Ice Hockey World Championship"? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championship would be better. It would also be consistent with other sports world championships naming conventions. Flibirigit (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I would also prefer the latter. I haven't checked the citations but a title should always be the one used most commonly by the article's sources. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Philippe Lacarrière

Hi everyone! I recently created the article Philippe Lacarrière and per this IIHF reference [1] it says him and his father were the first father-son duo to be inducted as builders. However, the official Wikipedia list List of members of the IIHF Hall of Fame and IIHF itself seem to contradict this. Is the list wrong, can someone be inducted as both, or is the reference wrong? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe the citation is inferring that they are the first father-son pair to be both inducted as builders. The other father-son inductees were either player inductees, or one player, one builder combo. Leventio (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Nvm just saw what you meant with Jacques... I can look into it. Leventio (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

So, the senior Lecarriere definitely has experience that qualifies him as a builder (he was France's delegate for the IIHF Congresses), but most sources typically talk about his contributions as a player (captain of the French team). Anyhow, the IIHF Hall of Fame page has him listed as a player, so I'd probably trust that source more than the press release (which is also from IIHF, so they're sorta contradicting themselves here). I'm assuming the author of the piece wanted to highlight both of their off-ice contributions but just incorrectly used the term builder for both. Leventio (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Alright, that's what I was expecting. Thanks a lot! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, thanks for writing the article. I was beginning to think I was the only person creating biographies for IIHF Hall of Famers. Flibirigit (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha, you probably were. I saw your post in the section above so I thought that would a be a fun thing to do. Currently working on Miroslav Šubrt right now. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on that. I have completed the missing Canadians and Americans, and did one Russian inductee. I might get to it later, as I'm focusing on some other things for now. I am able to read French and German if you need any help. Flibirigit (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change the definition of "having played for a team"

Good afternoon all, I was given a suggestion by SP17 to propose a change to this project norm, after we found conflict with it on Mike McKenna's page. As it stands, the project norm dictates that only individuals who have physically played for a team count as having played for said team. This doesn't account, however, for backup goaltenders who are traded before having started a game or appearing in relief, such as McKenna during his brief stint with the Vancouver Canucks. It was noted that he backed up Jacob Markstrom for two games after being acquired from Ottawa, before being placed on waivers and subsequently claimed by Philadelphia. My standpoint is that he and other such players still be counted as having played for the team in question, as they still dressed in the uniform, and sat on the bench. They may not have seen physical game action, but they were on the active roster, and thus the team should be included in the infobox. Thoughts? Fhsig13 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Mckenna isn't in the List of Vancouver Canucks players article. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The infobox is already being cluttered with too much information. Wikipedia practice in general is to only list the most pertinent info. This Wikiproject regularly violates that by listing every team in the infobox, when it should only be the top-level teams. Flibirigit (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay, I'm assuming that McKenna isn't included in that list, for this very reason. And @Flibirigit, IMO McKenna should be counted as having played for Vancouver, as there are players such as Mikko Jokela, who have appeared in less games and are still counted. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I would be against including players who don't actually play a game. The NHL, for example doesn't count McKenna or anyone else like that as having played; they have to actually take part in the game itself to be considered playing for that team. To use a different definition would run counter to long-established consensus throughout the sport, and frankly be inaccurate. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope we follow what the NHL does, if you don't physically play a game, you aren't counted. It is a very long established consensus. The backup example you point to was taken into account, we just don't count them as having "played" just as the NHL doesn't count them as having played. You can still mention that situation in the prose of their article, but officially they aren't counted as having played. Playing means actually playing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• Quite aside that I agree with Kaiser and DJ, what's the benefit to such a sweeping change? Ravenswing 21:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Also, to quote from the OP: "only individuals who have physically played for a team count as having played for said team" - I mean, that's asked and answered, no? Echoedmyron (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Except that it is a curious inconsistency in NHL play; you can be a forward who gets benched and it counts as a game played, but a backup goalie who does not enter the game does not get counted. Though I believe it to be unfair I do not think we should change how we list them until the NHL changes. The IIHF does count backups as playing in a game but it would be a really rare situation for that to matter. For example, Dennis Maruk did not physically play with the North Stars until 1983, but dressed for two games in 1978 but was not allowed to get on the ice during either of those games.18abruce (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Maruk is credited with 2 shots and was a -1 in those two games. How did he manage to accomplish that sitting on the bench? --SP17 (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, I was going by what he says himself in his book. He states that the coach was told not to play him because of the pending trade, but why would they even dress him in that case? Perhaps I misread what he meant, I will have to look that up again when I have the time. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Further to that, Gary Unger's ironman streak ended with him dressing but not playing the game, so it definitely doesn't count for skaters either. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Kootenay Ice relocation

Does anyone have time to follow-up on announcements for the Kootenay Ice relocation to Winnipeg? I read on Global News about a pending press conference for January 29th. I'm heading out and may not get to it for a while. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist and requested temp semi-protections from IPs. Yosemiter (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

United States Amateur Hockey Association

The United States Amateur Hockey Association (USAHA) redirects to USA Hockey, which is incorrect. USA Hockey evolved from the Amateur Hockey Association of the United States (AHAUS) which was founded in 1937. AHAUS was not the same thing as the USAHA.

The USAHA was a senior amateur hockey league in the 1920s. We currently have Category:United States Amateur Hockey Association populated its teams and players, but no corresponding league article!

• A relatively complete league history can be found at Vintage Minnesota Hockey
• Partial statistics are located on hockeybd.com here, but the web site seems to include stats from a similar league before WWI also.

I also found that the IceHockeyWiki article is very similar to what is found on Vintage Minnesota Hockey, but we cannot cite another Wiki site. Is anyone willing to help, or have other information? Flibirigit (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

An article for the United States Amateur Hockey Association has now been created. Flibirigit (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Kenora Thistles FAC, again

Hi all, I've re-nominated Kenora Thistles for FAC (see the nomination here), for the third try. As the previous two attempts failed due to lack of reviews, if anyone here would be so kind as to give a comment, it would be much appreciated. I'd really prefer to not have to do this for a fourth time. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Season columns in List of team seasons

Many of these lists have two season columns; for example the List of Vancouver Canucks seasons has an NHL season column and a Canucks season column. Why?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@SaskatchewanSenator: probably to have both the league season articles and the team season articles linked to the page for somewhat easier navigation. Yosemiter (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that is exactly why if I remember correctly. To allow linking to both relevant articles. -DJSasso (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-notable pages

Greetings, I am most likely not doing this right but one has to try. I have been doing my best (or worst as some may see) to update bios for ice hockey players, especially those that hadn't been updated in donkeys, i.e. “he currently plays for HK Nitra in the Slovak Extraliga” when in fact he since moved to GKS Katowice in Poland, oh and he's been retired since 2015 as well, at least correct that information to make it accurate. Well, during this operation I have come across some non-notable pages that I know you are all fed up seeing, especially when most of them was created by one individual. Now I believe to the best of my (limited) knowledge that I do hot have the power (or tools) to nominate these articles for deletion but I would be more than happy to pass any I come across on to someone who can. If anyone can just lead me in the right direction, I'll follow their lead. Tay87 (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why you aren't able to bring the articles to AfD, but if you can't or are unable to, perhaps compile a list of articles and share it here when it becomes reasonably long? Surely someone here will be able to do the final action. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have such a list on my user page. --SP17 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tay87: Also not sure what you are asking. There is a difference between out of date articles, especially ones covered mostly in non-English language sources such as your example, and truly non-notable. Unfortunately, the English Wikiepdia, especially in sports related articles, are very poorly maintained for non-English topics. If the sources exist, it is best to update them without using MOS:DATED language (as in do not "currently playing with...", but instead something like "As of 2018, was playing with..."). For notability guidelines themselves, first read the General Notability Guideline. The ice hockey notability guideline is very helpful for making an assumption for whether or not the player likely has merit for notability and is a good starting point for players. If there are enough existing sources, then the article should be expanded if possible.

If after a source search shows the player does not meet the GNG, then you can either propose the article for deletion (if it is clearly non-notable and lacks references that are not just routine or stats pages) or nominate it for deletion (if there are several sources that might make the prod be questioned). Read both deletion procedures carefully to decide what is the best course of action. Yosemiter (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: oh trust me I've already paid attention to the ice hockey notability guideline and found players that don't come close to the qualifications of notibility, some British based players and a few draft picks come to mind, like Juraj Gráčik for instance, less than 200 games in the Slovak Extraliga, clearly doesn't meet the guidelines so there's no real point in me updating him because he clearly isn't notable. Tay87 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tay87: He does have 207 if you count playoff games. But if you feel like it cannot sourced to meet GNG, you are still allowed to nominate it though AfD. NHOCKEY is like a CliffsNotes version of hockey player notability, GNG still overrides it. Yosemiter (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: Sorry for the late reply, I was sick but I am a bit better now. Before I got sick however I found absolutely zero of worth on Mr. Gracik. If he at least meet NHOCKEY then I'm okay with that, but if anyone wants to file a deletion notice for GNG, be my guest. Tay87 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! I am new to the game. I don't even know the rules or any players/teams. I just want to help. Let me know where to start. Thanks! ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for saying hello. What part of the game interests you? There's certainly a lot that needs done in this project. Flibirigit (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I might start watching the NHL soon. First encountered this sport in IHWC. Currently watching swedish hockey league. I want to disclose that I am more of a deletionist and would like to stay away from stub articles. My goal is to create good/A/featured quality articles, fact check and mostly copyedit. I will try to get myself familiar with the project's sources that are considered reliable, style and guidelines. If required, I would participate on a particular taskforce. Consensus should be reached regarding all edits. I am here to gain experience and learn and enjoy the wonderful game. Thanks for your response, Flibirigit, it will be a pleasure to work with you. I apologise in advance and let me know if I neglect anything. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You may be interested in maintaining article for the hockey players themselves. The project can always use help with fact-checking and citation in biographies. I will post the maintenance list here briefly. Flibirigit (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance link

https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/cwb/bycat/Ice_Hockey.html

There is also an icon on this project's home page with the same link. Flibirigit (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help! Will start working shortly while familiarizing myself with the project. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you're interesting in writing biographies that don't exist, the red links at List of members of the IIHF Hall of Fame would be greatly appreciated too. Flibirigit (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing! As long as they meet WP:NHOCKEY. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The inductees would definitely meet WP:GNG, for those are builders instead of athletes. Flibirigit (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Article alerts is also a good place to start, if you want to familiarize yourself with proposed deletions, moves, GA or DYK nominations, et cetera. Flibirigit (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides do you guys have a welcoming template to recruit new users? 23:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find one. But there is a userbox: {{User WikiProject Ice Hockey}} Flibirigit (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup, alright then, We'll have to find ways to make this project as efficient as possible. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made use of the generic {{subst:welcome}} template when I do see new folks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A modified version of wikiproject ice hockey should be created to welcome ice hockey related contributes. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We haven't really had one in the past because a lot of people consider that spamming editors as it is impersonal. If people wish to join they will find us or you can write an invitation without using a template which is much more personal. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Because you asked if there's anything to do: a while ago I created a list of Olympic hockey players who don't have articles yet see here. All of them would pass notability guidelines, but the major problem is there is not really any useful English sources for them, beyond the fact they played at the Olympics. However many national Olympic committees have archives of athletes, including basic biographical information. I've ever so slowly been working on the list; Google translate does a good enough job for basic info, so feel free to look at that if you'd like. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

A new list has appeared

Since it is hockey related: is List of professional ice hockey teams in North America by metropolitan area just new and unsourced or a synthetic creation for metro areas and pro hockey teams that fails WP:LISTN as WP:LISTCRUFT? It looks to me like the creator took the subjects of List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises and List of ice hockey leagues#North America and combined them for hockey. It is possible that "metro area by hockey teams in various leagues" is talked about in abstract, typically in relation to other subjects though like Potential National Hockey League expansion. It was probably created to copy another unsourced list, List of professional baseball teams in North America by metropolitan area, then created this one and List of professional gridiron football teams in North America by metropolitan area. Thoughts? Yosemiter (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Generally, I like large lists covering a lot of sub lists. But in this case: DELETE. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: I take that back. Much to my surprise, List of American and Canadian cities by number of major professional sports franchises and List of ice hockey leagues are bad and/or unsourced. We should really really REALLY focus on them! Let's move them to F List. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I question if WP:LISTN is satisfied for any of those lists. Flibirigit (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@ImmortalWizard and Flibirigit: Indeed, many are unsourced/undersourced. And you are correct that we should improve "List of Xs" first. I'm mostly just asking if the bolded one meets WP:LISTN for potential sources. It is more a "List of X of Y of Z" (X= professional hockey teams; Y= North American; Z= by Metro area). Similar lists have deleted in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American and Canadian cities by minor professional sports franchises) and kept (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor sports teams in the United States by city). The one in question here seems like yet another listcrufty-list that will be forgotten and never updated when the lower level leagues inevitably fluctuate in membership or in the rank of the metro area as there is no main subject. Yosemiter (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: probably not. You could either delete them and work them on userspace, or fix them in the mainspace. I prefer the former. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: on that case, we should delete the bolded one, improve the large one without sources, and then think about breaking the large one and creating several small ones where ever appropriate. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's favorable to apply WP:NOTEDIT here. ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have now nominated these seemingly WP:SYNTH lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional ice hockey teams in North America by metropolitan area. Yosemiter (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspensions in roster templates?

I know far from everything about this Wikiproject, you can probably see my main area of experience in my username. But I love ice hockey. With Evgeni Malkin suspended, I thought maybe to update Template:Pittsburgh Penguins roster, but I have no recollection of ever seeing a marking for someone being suspended. Do we have one? If not, should we consider making one? I would think it useful, especially because of longer ones for certain dirty players or out-of-rink misconduct. Forgive me if this has been brought up before, never really talked much to the project. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspended or not, he's still on the Penguins roster. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: To expand on GoodDay's comment, in most cases, I believe the suspended player counts against the team's 23-player roster limit. So a marker doesn't really apply here the same way an Injury indicator in the roster template does. (There are exceptions, such as with Tom Wilson, where a team applied for and was granted a suspended player roster exemption.) Yosemiter (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So the 23-player roster limit what we're talking about when we use the templates. Alright, at least I know that now. I didn't think of that marker as anything more than saying the player is injured. Next question is why it still wouldn't be helpful to have it in the list as suspended. I believe it would help readers and that the casual reader would think of the marker as simply saying the player is injured. (I mean, all it says is 'injured reserve' when you mouse over it, that doesn't provide the level of clarity I have now.) dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

In most cases the player is going to serve the suspension so fast that its not really beneficial for us to change it. Remember we are an encyclopedia not a news site so we don't generally try to keep up with up to the minute changes in status. (its one reason we don't update stats during season) Injuries are a bit different in that they often last awhile so a note is more appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Stats are harder, and I would never advocate for that, but even though I'd prefer if we did try to keep up with up to the minute changes in status on the roster charts, I guess I see your point. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake I would just stick with current plans. This WikiProject is not that active and big. It will difficult to keep everything updated. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, less maintenanve is better. There's already enough to update, let alone more. Flibirigit (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Hockey League Players' Association

Is there someone with knowledge of the Canadian Hockey League Players' Association who is willing to review the recent edits to the article? I'm not overly familiar with the subject. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI report

Check out this ANI report, concerning editing of Canadian NHL teams. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Contract details in team season pages... again

There was some kind of understanding regarding the contract details when we discussed it the last time. Since then I implemented the format to all the teams' pages for the 2018–19 season (the main reason for that was the contract values). However, one user refuses to accept it at 2018–19 Pittsburgh Penguins season and when I advised him to bring the matter here, he just left "friendly" message in his edit summary and accused me of vandalism. Nobody has opposed the format since other user did that when the discussion took place until now. Looks like we have to re-visit this matter, but I am still opposed to adding contract values. Any opinions? – Sabbatino (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason to change a decision made just a few months ago. Deadman137 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah nothing has changed since the last discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Major milestones reached" section in NHL season pages

Does anyone else think that the "Major milestones reached" sections in the NHL season pages are too long? They do add the players' milestones, but that takes down the quality of the NHL season page as these lists are excessively long. I thought about moving the milestones to the respective teams' pages, but most of them already include that information (however, no sources are listed there). I also considered moving such lists to a completely new page, but I could not think of a good name for it. How this should be handled? – Sabbatino (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps limiting the lists to the actual NHL Milestone Awards the league hands out would be the best approach? "NHL Milestone Awards are presented by the NHL to players who achieve the following: 400 goals, 600 assists, 1,000 points and 1,000 games (skaters); 500 games and 40 shutouts (goaltenders); and 750 games (head coaches)." At some point the number of shutouts milestone was changed from 25 to 40.[2] --SP17 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this would work for the milestones reached section. I wouldn't change the first and last games subsections. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Less trivia is better. Hockey fans go overboard with the statistics, and forget about prose. Flibirigit (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@SP17: There are also pages at NHL's website dedicated to milestones in here and here (same page but old design). I suspect that the IP, who is adding all the milestones, is taking information from the pages that I mentioned, but I am not sure since some of the milestones are missing there unless the NHL removes players from that list once they reach it. The pdf of "NHL Milestone Awards" that you showed is a good suggestion, but the biggest problem is that it is released before the season. I tried looking for the same thing for the 2018–19 season, but had no luck. However, I agree that there should be some kind of limit to listed milestones and that pdf is a good example on how it should be handled.

@Djsasso: Well I did not mention anything about the first and last games subsections, but thanks for mentioning it. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep I realize that, I just mentioned it because they all fall under the milestone section so figured I would clarify that I don't think those ones are an issue. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Big Ten All-Tournament Teams

Hello hockey project. I came across this article, which collects the Big Ten Conference's ice hockey all-tournament teams. The article needs to be moved as it isn't specific enough (the Big Ten sponsors a number of other tournaments), but I figured I'd also flag it to this project to A) decide if its an article that you want at all, and B) determine the appropriate naming convention. I can move it and change links this weekend if no one on here has time, but I figured you'd want to hash it out yourselves - if I move it I won't leave a redirect to the original title as it is too ambiguous. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The article content is certainly fine, but as for the name. Do we have any other articles on all tournament teams from those tournaments? If not then there is no need for disambiguation and the article name as it is currently is fine. If we have others then yeah it should definitely should be moved. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. If it's specifically about hockey tournament teams, the title should say hockey so readers know what they are looking at. It's not just about what currently exists, and besides even if articles don't exist today they could later. Rikster2 (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That is what the lead is for. The title should reflect its common name until the need for disambiguation. In other words if any of those articles do ever come into existence then disambiguation should be considered. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, right now the lead doesn't make it clear either, but I disagree completely with what you are saying. If there were no other sport articles for a university would you advocate an article about the lacrosse team to be called "Foo University Fooers" if that's not the scope? Why make it harder for readers? Plus, the commonname is "Big Ten Men's Ice Hockey Tournament" (see here). Rikster2 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't about the tournament so the tournaments name isn't relevant. It is about a specific award which is known as the "Big Ten All-Tournament Team". But as for the lacrosse example, yes I would. And in fact that is what was done in the early days for most university sports pages before more teams were created. The lead could be improved, that I agree with. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

But "All-Tournament team" only appears in the context of the ice hockey tournament, so yeah they don't have to differentiate the sport when presented in context - but they always differentiate the sport when talking about the tournament. I am sure the Big Ten does this because they sponsor something like 15 tournaments, all of which have an all-tournament team. And this article stands alone, it isn't a list of all-tournament team members within an article about the hockey tournament. I am really not understanding why you'd want an ambiguous title vs. one that is clear (and only slightly different from the current one. But hey, knock yourself out, I'm not losing any sleep over it Rikster2 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I don't actually feel strongly about it, but I am just pointing out why its not as black and white as you might have thought it was. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's all good. One of the reasons I brought it to you all is that I'm not even sure a stand-alone article needs to exist at this point. The Big Ten Hockey Tourney has only existed for five years and the article isn't that long - tournament teams could just be a section of the article and broken out once that content gets too big for it to be presented cleanly. That's what I'd advocate if it were a basketball article. It's a little different case if we were talking about the ACC basketball tournament, which has had 50+ all-tournament teams. But I feel like that is a project decision. Rikster2 (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Help expanding the statistics of Oliwer Kaski

Hi, I have little experience in creating any stat tables for anything on Wikipedia, let alone my slight experience in hockey here, but recently I have been made aware of this gentleman here. Oliwer Kaski has been lighting up the Liiga this year (17-30-47 in 55 GP as a defenseman - those are elite numbers if I say so myself) and I have found his page to be rather neglected. I would help, but I have no idea how. Could I get some help here? I would appreciate it. Thank you! dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: It looks like I semi worked on it in October but must have forgotten to come back. I expanded the lead and updated the stats until the 2017–2018 season [3]. If you are interested, his father Olli passes NHOCKEY too [4]. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Upon a further search, his dad has an article on the Finnish Wikipedia that we could base ourselves on, as well as Oliwer's own article which is substantially further expanded. It would probably gain a lot more attention when Oliwer inevitably signs with someone in North America (those numbers are signs of definite potential), so we'll go on from there. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

And his uncle too (though his will likely be a stub). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I wouldn't bother on his, WP:PERMASTUB likely. Maybe redirect it to a personal life section once Oliwer's gotten big. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect uniform illustration on Edmonton Oilers article

I'm not sure where to bring this to attention, so I decided to mention it here. Anyway, I found a minor mistake on the uniform illustration on the Oilers article. The colours on the sleeve and waist stripes on the white jersey should be reversed. The two outside stripes should be blue, while the stripe in the middle should be orange. I have used this website as a reference. I would change it myself, but I'm not sure what program is used to create these illustrations. Yowashi (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

According to the image upload history, Tdunsky, Rickyharder, DarkFox01, or Russ Jericho would be the ones to know how to update. Yosemiter (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The comment is correct. Thanks for that. I will fix the image within the next few days. Tdunsky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Messy updating of Canadian NHL 2018-19 team's player stats & nobody seems to care

A second ANI report concerning the topic of erroneous updating of player stats in 2018-19 season articles of Canadian NHL teams, has currently been open for a few days. The apparent indifference of many members of this WikiProject, is disappointing. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I would happy if the statistics were deleted. We're an ecyclopedia, not a statistics book. Flibirigit (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, if it is a repeated WP:OR issue, would that not be enough to create a block log on the user? We could also invite the user here to discuss the consensus of which sources should be used and when they should be updated per WP:RSBREAKING. Stats often change overnight when the league evaluates the game and score sheets, re-calculating shots and re-assigning assists on tips and such. Might be wise to simply establish that we should wait until the sources are updated. Otherwise WP:COUNT could apply as not being research (unless said user is repeatedly shown to be not competent at maths). Yosemiter (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Most recently, when Yowashi has corrected my work, I found out that some errors on the player stats where part of Yowashi's mistakes. An example was when Calgary Flames lost to Arizona Coyotes 2-0, Yowashi forgot to add in Games played for Garnet Hathway and forgetting to add in the exact number of saves Mike Smith had. I assumed Yowashi had the official source but I was not aware of his mistakes that time. Also, I could be at fault because I add or subtract the nhl players's numbers from the recap game if I was not using the team's regular season stat source. NicholasHui (talk) 9:38, 17 March 2019 (PT)

@NicholasHui and Yowashi: Mistakes are natural and human. I would suggest both stop attempting to update statistics until the score sheets are completely final per WP:RSBREAKING. As Wikipedia is not a sports statistics almanac, we do not need to be "first edit" or up-to-date within seconds. There are other sites for that kind of editing. As long as it is done within a reasonable time frame (such as about a week or month), then in-season stats are fine per MOS:DATED. It is one of many reasons we do not update player and team stats pages in-season. But constant updates, that may or may not introduce errors, seems counter-productive. Yosemiter (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. To be fair, I'm not trying to be the first one to update the statistics section, that is not why I'm here. I came here to simply maintain these articles since they are rarely updated on a regular basis. I have also been waiting for the sources to update the information before I even update it here on wikipedia. However, I will agree to not update the statistics section. We just have to see if NicholasHui is willing to agree to refrain from updating immediately after a game. Yowashi (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter:, as I understand it NicholasHui is not re-ranking players, when he updates their stats. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Then that still sounds like NicholasHui is trying to edit too quickly. My suggestion to NicholasHui is:

#1: Are your sources for making calculations complete and reliable? If not, do not edit the stats yet.

#2: Are you capable of both making the calculations required (with a high degree of consistency) and can they be backed up by the complete sources? Calculations can be explained in an edit summary. If you have shown to be error prone (as live stat updates often cause), then do not edit the stats.

#3: Why are you not re-ranking? Are you editing too quickly and missing steps in the edit? Did you not know about them being ranked? Or have you been told about re-ranking and simply either do not understand or ignored the comment?

In all regards, I still say to slow down and think about the issue at hand, which appears to "first"-type editing and possibly problematic non-collaborative behavior or even treating pages like a battleground. Yosemiter (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Their were times where I did checked my work since I notice Yowashi has checked the players stats on the sites I edit. I noticed that even though I made the calcualtions correctly, Yowashi's information comes from the official source and not from adding the recap stats on the team official stats. So both of us have different strategies in updating. I do check my work. Its just that I am adding the numbers in the team stats on Wikipedia rather than looking at the official team website stats. Note that their are some reasons why I update the NHL Canadian Team stats on Wikipedia immediately after the game ends:

I can add the recap game stats on Wikipedia by adding/subtracting the player's numbers

I had seen another IP user that updates the Ottawa Senators season page stats immediately as frequent after the game is finalized. Also, I knew how to re-rank the player's total number of points since Yowashi has told me about this on December 2018. NicholasHui (talk) 0:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Why do you not always fix the rankings? GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please learn how to sign your posts, so it'll show the UTC time. Instead of you printing the time. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

PS: read up on WP:INDENT, as well. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is evident that NicholasHui is ignoring every single message being given to him. This is his new edit on the Vancouver Canucks article. I'm already getting a sense that something is wrong with it. Yowashi (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I am getting tired of responding on this subject. I think it is at the point where you both need to drop the bone and back away. If you guys are disagreeing where to take the stats from then both of you just take them from the league website as it is the one most likely to be correct. It is a simple solution. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what we have been trying to get NicholasHui to do, but he won't listen. Trust me, I'm tired of having to squabble with this person too. Honestly, a simple solution would be to just prevent them editing those articles, as it is clear that they are ignoring every piece of advice given to them. Yowashi (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The current venue for discussing conduct of NicholasHui in regard to Hockey articles is this ANI thread. Having an additional conversation here only hampers consensus building. If you'd like to discuss NicholasHui's behavior, please chime in at ANI. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: The ANI has been partially closed (permalink); discussion of a topic ban is still outstanding. It would be good if the WikiProject had some best practices on which sources to use for stats. The user might be of help if he just had a set process to follow that everyone here agreed on.—Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I would propose updating the statistics once a week, which should be done on Monday before that day's games since that is when the new week starts. I have been doing this for the Devils, Islanders and Rangers this season. Of course, there are times when I might miss the Monday editing then I update it the next Monday, which would be two weeks since my last update. I used to do the game logs and infobox updates, but since Yowashi and Xolkan have been doing a great job in that area, I decided to stick to players' statistics and transactions. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any existing consensus on live updating during games? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I filed this ANI report against an IP user that live updates the Ottawa Senators article while a game is still in progress. It is not recommended to live update, as there may be possible errors. However, the people that I talked to said that the situation wasn't that big of a deal. For updating stats, I think from now on, users who update statistics should use this website to obtain information from. That website is much more accurate than the information on a team's official website. For those that choose to update after every game, it is recommended to wait 30–40 minutes for the information on the website to update, before updating the statistics section here on Wikipedia. Yowashi (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Yowashi: Live updating is against general Wikipedia guidelines per WP:LIVESCORES and WP:NOTNEWS. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: Does WP:LIVESCORES need a more thorough consensus? Seeing as the current guideline says Only three editors participated in the discussion so the decision may need to be revisited at some point. I'll admit I'm not a usual sports editor, so I'm not very familiar with sports policies. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I just realized that the WP:LIVESCORES policy comes from MOS:SNOOKER (hence the three people in the quote). However, that does not change the fact that WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Even WP:CRYSTAL can be applied to live updating since the editor would be predicting the outcome, statistics, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. But, the people that I discussed with on the ANI report didn't think it mattered that much. So, I just kind of shrugged it off and dealt with it. Yowashi (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If that is the "correct" stats source, I'd recommend making sure it is consistent with the citations in existing articles. I'd hate to be an editor referring exactly to what's cited, only to be told I was doing it wrong. (Incidentally, call it a webpage and not website, since the website NHL.com apparently has conflicting webpages for stats). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I will make sure that the citations are updated for all articles. I will need assistance and consensus from others as to when the citations will be changed. Yowashi (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I can understand you not wanting to be WP:RECKLESS with articles you dont normally edit, but it seems if you are already using the source, you should change the source with your next edit or otherwise use the source that is already cited.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Playoff template

Following up on this discussion last year, I have implemented an optional parameter for "homeright" on Template:NHLPlayoffs. If used, we no longer need "home team" in the "team2" parameter and their stadium/arena in the "stadium1" parameter that have been using in the template to force the layout. Now Team1 can equal Stadium1 as it was meant to be. Please let me know if you find any bugs. Yosemiter (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been testing it using the preview changes while playing with the 2018 playoff article and have been unable to break the template, so far, so good. Deadman137 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

A couple of TFDs

I nominated Template:Miracle1980 (here) and Template:Pittsburgh Penguins Owners (here) for deletion since this project does not create templates for head coaches, championships, captains, owners, etc. Editors' opinions are welcome in those discussions. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

NHL regular season standard color scheme

The standard color scheme must now be used for all wins and losses by every team in the NHL. The Pittsburgh Penguins do not follow this convention, which poses a problem. The correct convention is:

Legend:   Win (2 points)   Loss (0 points)   Overtime/shootout loss (1 point)   Game postponed J4lambert (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

To be fair we don't have a standard across all the teams. I just spot checked about 5 or 6 and most of them all had different schemes. Settling on one version would be good. But the standard you mention here was only used on one of the pages I checked. So it clearly isn't the standard either unless I fluked out and only picked the ones that didn't match the standard. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that I use blue   for OT/SO losses on the Lightning article (also in previous years) since yellow   is typically what I see used for soccer matches that end in a draw, and as we all know that is no longer possible in the NHL. On occasion I see some teams using white for an OT/SO loss which throws me off because to me it comes off as the color is missing rather than distinguishing it as a loss following regulation. Whether or not blue is worse than yellow in terms of MOS:CONTRAST as Yosemiter mentions below, I do not know. For the playoffs I only use red or green, but gray   for games that are "if necessary". Tampabay721 (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tampabay721: The blue is OK-ish, but the yellow is better (blue outright fails compliance when there is a visited link on that blue bg and using the Monobook skin). I see no reason for the need to use a different color for OTL/SOL because they are not ties, they serve the same purpose when skimming thought an article. The yellow simply states the team got a point in that game, but not full points. Yosemiter (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we are definitely lacking a bit of consistency here, but that is not really a "problem" per se (games are postponed so rare, not sure it really needs its own color, especially when that color seems to match the heading background). It might be relevant that we really shouldn't be using those colors at all with visited links as they fail or nearly fail MOS:CONTRAST. I recently had discussions about the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Win-Loss colors on season tables and Talk:Utah Warriors#Colored tables. In short, the red #FFCCCC is pretty bad for contrast ratios with linked text. Yosemiter (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Live updating on 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article

I filed this ANI report a week or so ago about this situation. However, the people that I discussed this topic with didn't think that it was that big of an issue. During Ottawa's game against Vancouver on Wednesday, I noticed that the IP user that updates the Senators article on a regular basis, had made multiple edits to the game log (updating the score after each goal) and infobox sections when there were still roughly three minutes to go in the final period. Should this be a topic of concern? Yowashi (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If the information is correct, no. I think you have had a pretty overwhelming amount of people tell you its not something to be worried about. We suggest people not update until the game is done, but it is not something to fight this much about. It is pretty much impossible to stop all IPs from updating early, and edit warring about it is worse than the actual early updating. Also those IPs might end up turning into registered users and contribute more positively over time. But hounding them over and over with no real benefit to doing so decreases that chance. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection is the only thing for that situation, but it would have to be permanent. BTW, check out the List of NHL statistical leaders article. Now there's an article near impossible to control. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried for a while to control List of NHL statistical leaders and it's near impossible without semi-protection. Pichpich (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider establishing consensus to follow a practice like one described at the WP:EDITNOTICE at Template:Editnotices/Page/List of Major League Baseball career stolen bases leaders. Semiprotect/block if it becomes necessary.—Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

We have a message on that article, in big red type, telling editors not to update during the season & afterward during the playoffs. The IPs either just ignore it or fail to see it. In the past, I requested permanent semi-protection for the article, but administrators rejected the idea. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: This Template:Editnotices/Page/List of NHL statistical leaders seems to be ignored, at least by the IPs that do edit it anyways. Although it could be working fine, maybe it would be really bad without it. Can't tell how many edits were not done. Yosemiter (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. It is hit or miss. It isn't as bad as it used to be since we implemented it. But we also don't have people patrolling it anymore to make sure it doesn't happen either. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

To me, the IP User updating the scores knows what they are doing. However, it is true to say not to live update since anything can happen no matter how much time is left in regulation. I done so similar to other nhl teams and there can be times where unexpected stuff happen. NicholasHui (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: Not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but the question at hand here is whether or not live updating should even be allowed. The apparent difference between the IP's live stats edits on the Sens page vs. what you were doing is that the IP is apparently at least accurate and you have been prone to making mistakes (although the IP might need to be warned about WP:NOTCRYSTAL if they are updating the records in the infobox before the come is 100% done). Live updating is frowned upon, but not necessarily against any rules as long as it is verifiable (which it should mostly be if using NHL.com stats). However, I still stand by my previous comments: waiting is better and more likely to be accurate. Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Yosemiter: I will take your message into account when I update the NHL Canadian Team stats by not rushing through editing. NicholasHui (talk) 1:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hockey vs "ice hockey"

The convention has always been to describe players in their leads as "X is a professional ice hockey player who..." At Neal Broten an IP changed "ice hockey" to [[ice hockey|hockey]], resulting in showing as "Neal LaMoy Broten (born November 29, 1959) is an American former professional hockey player". I reverted that, twice, and have now been twice reverted by the IP, who doesn't seem to have read my notes about it. Now, at WP:HOCKEY/PPF the suggested lead clearly says ice hockey, and pretty much every player article leads this way, but before I lose any sleep over this, does anyone have feels about the usage here? I don't see anything anywhere that specifies must say "ice hockey" and not just "hockey" Echoedmyron (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I recall, this was last discussed here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive66#Ice hockey or just hockey?. In order to support a global audience, standard practice is to use "ice hockey" in the first mention of the article, as in some countries "hockey" invariably means field hockey, while in others it always means "ice hockey". isaacl (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, and thank you for the link to the archived discussion - I did a quick search but came up empty. As I'm on the verge of WP:3RR perhaps someone else wants to revert and explain to the IP? I mean, the WL goes to the ice hockey article, but it's presenting as hockey, which is visually confusing, and an easter egg. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the IP. It should be "ice hockey" like Isaacl wrote and like it was discussed the last time. – Sabbatino (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Use "ice hockey" for the first mention, then it can be dropped to just "hockey" afterwords. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: since the IP made that change to "hockey" a fifth time, I requested semi-protection for the article, which has been granted for a week. It's not happening on any other hockey-related articles that I'm aware of, so maybe this helps for now. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Beat me too it. Was watching to see if he would and was going to semi protect it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The IP seems to be continuing on 72.21.236.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI When the first four sets of numbers of an IPv6 address are the same, 2601:449:C200:CDBF in this case, it's the same IP connection. Their combined contributions can be seen here. If the admin had noticed (probably not that widely known), a range block for the likely sole editor might have been more appropriate. But then there's another IP now, so ...—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this IP 134.84.1.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) being purposly misleading? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple IP users (or the same IP user, not sure) is currently changing ice hockey to hockey on Nick Bjugstad's article. Yowashi (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The 2601:449:C200:CDBF:* range has been blocked.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I knew it was the same editor, I just hadn't blocked yet cause the protection had seemed to stop it. But once they jumped articles this was a good move. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@DJSasso: Would you mind blocking 134.84.2.103 as well? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: fixing ping. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry was out of town for the weekend so didn't get this. But looks like the range was blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Jordy Bellerive

He's been bugging my brain about how good he looks on the score sheet, especially with the stats he shows on EliteProspects. An undrafted free agent from my own Pittsburgh Penguins, Jordan Bellerive currently plays with the WHL's Lethbridge Hurricanes. What makes a hockey player notable? I just want to know so when he does for certain become notable I can do some starting work on him. dannymusiceditor ^oops 21:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor You would want to check out WP:NHOCKEY. For Bellerive to be notable enough for a page at this moment, he'd have to become an WHL all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, or pass GNG. You'll probably have to wait until the end of the season.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Or longer, DannyMusicEditor, if he's not named a First Team All-Star (he's not within 200 pts of the top ten career scorers). Either he'd have to rack up 200 games in the AHL, or else see ice time for the Penguins, to meet our notability standards. Ravenswing 07:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry yes, Ravenswing is right. What I meant was wait until the end of the season to see if he qualifies for WP:NHOCKEY as a First Team All-Star. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

He wasn't named to any all-star team for the 2018–19 season, so unfortunately doesn't meet that standard this season. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

London Knights logo

Could someone familiar with logos and fair use licensing please follow up on the change of logo at the London Knights article? I'm on a mobile phone for several days, and am unable to do certain tasks.

The recent addition is licensed as being a personal creation, when it should be fair use instead, with a reduced size. Thanks Flibirigit (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: Y I updated the SVG logo and restored it in the infobox. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Western Hockey League

Is anyone able to correct the list of teams in the Eastern Conference of the Western Hockey League, due to the relocation by the Winnipeg Ice? I'm unable to do it on my phone. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I can do it if its okay, but shouldn't we be waiting until the WHL playoffs are concluded? Leventio (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think he meant this broken edit. I already fixed it, just forgot to respond. Yosemiter (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

Could I get some opinions on this? Thanks. DS (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Updating teams of league during playoffs?

Sweden uses a promotion-and-relegation system. It would be convenient to update the list of teams for a certain league as soon as the relevant qualifier is over, especially for the SHL, even though the SHL playoffs are still going on. Should we wait to update the list of teams for leagues until the current season is over? The safest thing would be to wait out the last game out of all leagues to avoid one team being listed in two leagues. 37KZ (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@37KZ: I would vote to wait, with maybe a note attached to the team(s) promoted/relegated until the end of the playoffs at minimum. Maybe also have a separate table below similar to future team joining the league. I am not terribly familiar with the operations of European leagues, but do they re-align divisions and conferences each season with the promotion/relegation system? If they do, I would definitely use the "future team" table below the main table during the offseason until an alignment is confirmed. Yosemiter (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Only the lower leagues (tier 3 and lower) have a divisioning system in Sweden. Your comment raises an important question, your opinion on which I agree on. We cannot assume what divisions they end up in. In the cases of the lower leagues, they could also be restructured in the off-season. In that case we should completely suspend judgement on the structure of the leagues and just list the teams until we know how the next season's gonna look like. It would be weird to take away some relegated teams from some of the divisions, making them unbalanced. I personally believe waiting until all leagues have finished is the most appropriate thing to do. 37KZ (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There are no conferences and/or divisions in the European leagues (KHL is the only exception) so there are no re-alignments. The worst teams in the league (can differ from one to four teams) play in the relegation playoffs and then the worst team or teams from that group play the teams from the lower league that try to get promoted to the top league. Therefore, it would be best to wait until the series are over in order to avoid any inaccuracies or edit wars. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Do the promotion/relegation playoffs take place before all the playoffs done? (Such as the lower division playoffs are done, the top teams playing the bottom teams from the upper division and determining the teams to move up/down, prior to the upper division championships finishing.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The promotion/relegation playoffs take place when the lower league has finished its season. They can be held during or after the higher league's playoffs since some higher league playoffs can finish sooner than the promotion/relegation playoffs take place. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sabbatino is in a sense correct. In Sweden there are qualifiers for each group. So for Hockeyettan, group East has qualifier East, group North has qualifier North, etc. Sometimes, however, there are major restructurings, such as from six groups to four. However, I feel we cannot be expected to remove the groups after each season just because the federation hasn't confirmed yet how the next season is gonna be structured. Just update all the teams in the current structuring system. 37KZ (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 Blue Jackets and Lightning series

A user has created the Columbus Blue Jackets v Tampa Bay Lightning (2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs) page, which talks about the series between the Blue Jackets and Lightning. Are the series notable enough to have its own page? There are plenty of sources but about half of them have nothing to do with the series. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: Page moved back to draft for further review, links in the pages and templates have been removed for now. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Not as it's own page, but would definitely belong as small summaries on both team pages, season pages etc. It was the first time a president's cup winner was swept in the first round so it is historical to mention, but not as its own page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't have its own page. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The page can currently be found at Draft:Columbus Blue Jackets v Tampa Bay Lightning (2019 Stanley Cup Playoffs). I cleaned it up after the move and changed and/or provided additional sources. The creator has not edited for some days so I assume he/she is not interested in it. Someone with better knowledge about the deletion of draft pages should nominate it for deletion. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does the hockey team and tenure convention in the sidebar not match other major sports?

For example, you go to Lebron James' page and it says:

2003–2010 Cleveland Cavaliers

2010–2014 Miami Heat

2014–2018 Cleveland Cavaliers

2018–present Los Angeles Lakers

However on hockey player profiles it only shows teams played for, with the current team in italics. Shouldn't these players follow the same team and tenure convention as baseball, basketball, football, soccer, etc.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cccoulson (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@Cccoulson: The short answer is that the ice hockey project prefers less clutter in templates and less redundant information. A player's career track is typically well documented, including tenure, in the stats table as wells as in prose. The project simply just chooses not to list the same info a third time. Yosemiter (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

President's Cup (QMJHL)

A new user has noted objections to the name of President's Cup (QMJHL), contesting that it should be called President Cup (QMJHL). Does anyone have time to investigate in more detail and/or start a rename discussion? Thanks.Flibirigit (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: A quick generic glance at G-News articles for the Q championships seems to lean towards "President Cup" as the WP:COMMONNAME approximately 70% of the time. In a specific search, "President Cup" gets 1300+ hits while "President's Cup" gets 500+ hits. The WP:OFFICIALNAME is singular, but Common Name usually overrides (as found in Stanley Cup Finals). The only questionable aspect for the common name here is that some highly circulated sources such as NHL.com, CBC and CHL.com itself has used President's Cup. This seems like a good RfC topic for assigning weight to certain sources. Yosemiter (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. It appears the discussion is necessary. Do you mind starting an RFC? Thanks again! Flibirigit (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and made it a Requested Move instead per my reasoning in the discussion I started. Yosemiter (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If this is successful, we need to deal with the redirect at President Cup and update the President's Cup (disambiguation) disambiguation page. Flibirigit (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Game seven lists

List of NHL overtime game sevens was recently created but is it that much different from List of NHL game sevens to need a separate article? Tampabay721 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If you're proposing that the articles should be merged that's fine with me. Deadman137 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

TBH I was leaning towards proposing deletion of the overtime list since all of the content in it is virtually covered already in the original list, with the exception of noting how many overtime game sevens a team has played in. Feels like it was created in good faith but it's a content fork. Tampabay721 (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately the new article should be removed one way or the other. I guess the only thing that I'm still thinking about is, would it be worth it to add one section to the all time standings table about team overtime win/loss records in game seven or should it be a secondary table beneath the main one? Deadman137 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Best to just merge and redirect. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

They definitely seem like two articles that ought to be merged together, IMHO. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath sections

Here's an example of an aftermath section recently added to an Stanley Cup Finals article: [5]. I previously discussed these types of sections on the 1993 Stanley Cup Finals article, but no consensus was reached. Some Finals articles include events that are directly related to the Finals, which is my preference; others just talk about what happened in subsequent years, sometimes jumping ahead to the future where the next Finals appearances occurred. Can we reach an agreement on what the scope of an aftermath section should be? isaacl (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I had removed some of them, especially this editorial mess: "In the following season, Wayne Gretzky was traded to the Los Angeles Kings. Surprisingly, Gretzky faced his former team, the Oilers, in the first round." Why is that "surprising"? It is coincidental. Not to mention, whatever happened the following season has little to do with the previous championship series itself. What that user calls "Aftermath" in most cases is actually a "Where did they go from here" segment, i.e. it's trivia. The only reason I did not remove all of it is some may be actual aftermath effects (riots or retirements due to winning the championship and such) and I just didn't have the time to sort them all out. Yosemiter (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

They are trivial and should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be removed, because it talks about how they tried to defend their appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:5946:8C0:399E:756C (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the ones I've read don't really talk about how they tried to defend their appearances, in terms of actual transactions and whatnot. Most of the sections say how the teams did in the playoffs in the next year, which can be easily found by going to the team's season page for the next season. "Aftermath" refers to the direct results or consequences from an event, usually an unpleasant one. Subsequent playoff results fit better in the team articles, not the Stanley Cup Finals articles. isaacl (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Should these sections be removed from every Stanley Cup Finals' page? I see that it is present at the 1995 Stanley Cup Finals page and I am not sure if it should be left or removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the section is just generally describing what happened in the future for the teams in question, then it's not sufficiently related to the Finals and should be removed. The 1995 Finals article is exactly that and I feel the section is extraneous. If there are specific post-season events that can be traced directly as a consequence of the Finals, then they may be sufficiently germane to include in the Finals article. (In fact, considering the negative connotations for "aftermath", I'd suggest using a heading like "Post-season" instead.) isaacl (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Eurohockey.com

In the above discussion user Pelmeen10 uncovered an issue with the 'ice hockey stats' template. I tested a few players and they don't seem to connect properly, but the players do have updated profiles on the site. No idea what the issue is (or how it works) but it would be nice if someone could fix this.18abruce (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I have actually been in the process of fixing this for the last week. It is going to be fixed soon. I am slowly fixing all the articles and then the template will be switched over. I am surprised someone noticed in the short time of me fixing it. Right now about half the links work and half don't. I didn't want to switch the template until I got all the manually entered numbers fixed. As it would just reverse the ones that are broken to be the ones working and the ones that work to be the broken ones. Should be fixed soon, there are some 5000 articles left to go through but not all those will need fixing. The problem stemmed from the way we were tracking eurohockey pages and the way wikidata was. I am standardizing on how wikidata treats it for obvious reasons. But first I need to remove some of our manually entered data that conflicts with what wikidata has. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I only noticed because I was checking through details related to the above discussion. Thank you for taking on tasks like this.18abruce (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

They should all work now baring me missing fixing one. Still some more cleanup to do with this template but the eurohockey links should work now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think these article need some urgent help?

I think there should be a be a cleanup to improve Ice hockey in Belgium,Ice hockey in Bosnia and Herzegovina,Ice hockey in Italy,Ice hockey in Spain what are other users thoughts? Dwanyewest (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really urgent being that they are relatively minor hockey countries. But that being said go for it be bold. -DJSasso (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We can always use help if you're willing. Flibirigit (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hockey players born in the Soviet Baltic states

It appears that editor @Pelmeen10: disagrees with our using the Soviet Union as the birthplace for Soviet players born in (what is today) Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So basically an anon user changed the birthplace in article such as Lauri Lahesalu. Every source used in that article says Estonia (just like his passport), not Soviet Union. The need of sourcing content is a must in Wikipedia, or not? nhl.com, eliteprospects.com, hockeydb.com are the sites. Per Wikipedia:Five pillars: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. I have every right to revert or remove unsourced content. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please take another look at the sources on Lahesalu's page. True, eliteprospects and hockeydb list him as born in Estonia, but eurohockey states Soviet Union. Additionally eliteprospects lists players like Ilya Kovalchuk as not being born in the Soviet Union as well. My point is that it is not as black and white as you state, and that there is ramifications for thousands of pages based on the changes you are proposing. This is also an issue that has been discussed at length before with the answer being that we should identify the place of birth as the actual country (which some of the sources do not, clearly) in which they were born. Perhaps someone can reference the actual discussion and consensus for a firmer answer on this.18abruce (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not just hockey and it's not about policy. It's politics. The other biographical articles about Estonians list Estonia despite the reality that it was a 'vassal' state of the Soviet Union until 1990. I doubt any of the Estonians eds want to use the SSR in the birthplace of the infobox. I guess it is an embarrassment. Alaney2k (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

However, there are many such cases in Wikipedia. Koreans think the Japanese annexation of Korea is illegal, but do not object to describing the place of birth as the Japanese Empire. History can not be fixed. Koreans do not deny that they have lost their country in the past.124.49.87.16 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Arvydas Sabonis was a Soviet basketball team in 1988. Should we fix his history as he played for the Lithuanian team? You should not involve too much political argument in sports. Son Kitei was a Japanese marathon runner in 1936. Koreans do not deny it.124.49.87.16 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I found that previous discussion, it's here. Please don't make inappropriate comparisons, every case is different. eurohockey.com (gives error 404 if accessed directly from Wiki article) is a funny site, it also has every player's name is Cyrillic - not a common practise among other sites. But I have a question for you - how would you know which nationality to write into infobox? Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A compromise was reached 'six' years ago, to use 'Soviet Union' in ice hockey bios & not to use it in non-ice hockey bios. Why are you determined to ignore that compromise? Would you prefer to have 'Soviet Union' put in all Baltic sports bios of those born between 1940 & 1991? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't practice such revisionism elsewhere on Wikipedia either, but in any event, what other projects do is their own lookout. How do we know what nation to write into the infobox? The extant one at the time the subject was born, obviously. Ravenswing 14:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This went to RfC a long time ago and was discussed on many pages many times. The correct way to list it is with the SSR. That holds true for all articles, the issue is that the other articles get changed to Estonia but they don't have people watching over them to make sure the SSR remains. That is up to people in other projects. However, in our project we can most definitely make sure it sticks with the name as it was at the time of birth. We don't write nationality in our infoboxes so it isn't an issue. We only list national teams they played on. -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I may be late to this discussion, but here it goes. It is not just Baltics, despite this topic being about it. This project lists the country at the time of person's birth putting aside politics, whether something (occupation, annexation, etc) happened legally or ilegally, and since the Baltic states were under de facto Soviet rule, the format "City, State SSR, Soviet Union" is listed. I remember when I edited some basketball pages of the Baltic states in 2015 to list the "City, State SSR, Soviet Union" format and only opposition I got was in Estonian pages so I decided not to battle over it since editors from Estonia just do not listen citing all those discussions before I even joined Wikipedia. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• As time goes on this insistence on listing "City, State SSR, Soviet Union" is becoming increasingly perverse, no reliable source lists defunct states as places of birth for living people. In fact Toivo Suursoo’s biographical information from Eliteprospects.com[6], Eurohockey.com[7] and The Internet Hockey Database[8] all agree that his birth place is Tallinn, Estonia. Since when did WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Verifiability take a back seat in WP:HOCKEY? --Nug (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You haven't been around Wikipedia for five months, until this very moment. Anyways, we've an agreement on these ice hockey articles. Best to allow things to remain as they are & keep pandora's box closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Suursoo's page at Eurohockey says he was born in USSR. CBS sports list him as born in USSR. How many other reliable sources do as well? Hopefully we can move on using the results of the RFC.18abruce (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Internet Hockey Database doesn't bother to state that players were born in Canada or the US; they go with the states/provinces/territories, and Eurohockey plainly breaks players down between nationality and birthplace. ESPN lists players as having been born in the USSR or Czechoslovakia, where pertinent. So does the Sporting News site. In any event, the de facto truth that prior to 1990 the Baltic states were not independent polities is verifiable as hell, however much that has to torque off revisionist culture warriors. What is "perverse" is barging in to spread lies or display willful ignorance. Ravenswing 06:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I would point out listing place of birth as it was at the time of birth isn't just a WP:HOCKEY thing, its an entire Wikipedia thing and in fact it is the case in pretty much all scholarly sources. -DJSasso (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the place of birth has always been Estonia. Living Polish hockey players’ place of birth (for example Mirosław Tomasik) is listed as <town>, Poland, with no distinction between the 1918-1939 Republic of Poland, the 1945-1989 Polish People's Republic or the current Republic of Poland. Like Poland, Estonia (and the other Baltic states) had pre-1940 and post 1990 republics sandwiching a socialist state. But unlike Polish People's Republic, the Estonian SSR was never internationally recognised, though Estonia was de facto a part of the Soviet Union. But it was always Estonia, the same place, the same people. Even the NHL recognise this distinction, stating that Leo Komarov ”was born in Narva, Estonia, when it was part of the Soviet Union”[9]. --Nug (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Not going to get into it with you again. It was part of the USSR and if you sent mail to where he would have lived it was addressed as the Estonian SSR. I get it, it sucks that it was invaded and taken over, but it is revisionist to try and say that it wasn't the Estonian SSR at the time. It was. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nobody addressed mail with "Estonian SSR" back then, it is revisionist to claim they did. There was no requirement to do so, the only requirement was to append "U.S.S.R", look at the US Postal regulations of the time: "Estonia, U.S.S.R" was the accepted form of address[10]. --Nug (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, your arguments are tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Correct they added the USSR which means they were in the USSR and recognized as such by all the various government run postal systems. -DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hockey lore

From its inception, the talk page participants at National Hockey League lore haven't reached an agreement on objective criteria for inclusion (see Talk:National Hockey League lore § Clean-up suggestions, Talk:National Hockey League lore § Recentism, and Talk:National Hockey League lore § NFL Lore page deleted). I don't know how to arrive at one, either, as the concept of lore is a subjective one. Does anyone have any views on how to address this? isaacl (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Listing players selected with traded draft picks in Trades section

I was under the impression this was frowned upon. Has there been a change recently? --SP17 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall for sure, but I feel like we don't do that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This has been done in many pages since at least the 2017–18 season (it might also be the same in older seasons). I do not remember who implemented it, but I am also against it. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot speak for all of the other team articles but this has been going on for years with the Edmonton Oilers season articles. I never bothered to get rid of it when I saw it as I didn't find a conversation to reference the removal of this. Deadman137 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Professional ice hockey

Hi, I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but I wanted to bring your attention to this article. There have been some edit conflicts between two editors after new information came to light regarding the beginnings of professional ice hockey around 1902-1904. There is a dispute whether the birhplace of professional hockey is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or Houghton, Michigan.

Regards, --hmich176 18:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Roster moves from template to main page

I just want to notify everyone that another batch of roster moves from templates to main pages has been started. For example, Template:Toronto Marlies roster was moved to Toronto Marlies roster and then the content was copied to Toronto Marlies. As of now all AHL pages have been affected with the change, and I think NHL and all other top leagues will follow soon. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Why would the NHL templates follow? They are placed on multiple pages. --SP17 (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I see no problem with merging a single-use template into its parent article. There's no need to have a template when the info is only used in one article. Flibirigit (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The NHL templates aren't single use though. For instance, Template:Boston Bruins roster is currently in use at Boston Bruins, 2018–19 Boston Bruins season, and List of current NHL Eastern Conference team rosters. --SP17 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The AHL ones were all single-use as team season pages never got any updates (I redirected whatever existed of them ages ago to AHL season pages per MOS:DATED). For templates that are use 2-4 times, section transclusion from the most edited page on the subject works perfectly fine (see my use of the playoff bracket on 2018–19 AHL season#Calder Cup playoffs and 2019 Calder Cup playoffs#Bracket). Yosemiter (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@SP17: While the Bruins' roster template is currently used in 3 pages, it will soon became 2 pages when the Stanley Cup Finals are over. Yes, pages for every teams' 2019–20 season will be created, but nobody can be certain that List of current NHL Eastern Conference team rosters (same for Western Conference) would not be nominated for deletion. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

They wouldn't be, its standard to use templates for templates that are on multiple pages. The Marlies one is reasonable. It would not be for the NHL ones. I don't think you have to worry. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really a fan of section transclusion as it makes pages much more complicated and they often end up broken. (Recently fixed one on a page so its on my mind). Templates are generally better if something is to be used on more than one page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I find it easier sometimes to only edit a single subject page (like playoffs), but I do spend most of my time on the less visited pages so I am often the only maintainer for awhile. They seem just as likely to become broken as any template or table if they are a heavily visited subject and edited by less experienced editors; NHL rosters do probably fall into that description. I am also assuming random IPs find the roster template less often due to not necessarily knowing what the editor navbar does in the template, whereas the roster section header on the page has a clear [edit] link. Making the access easier could open up issues of breaking the roster templates more frequently or simply more vandalism. Yosemiter (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless you are on the page that is being transcluded, then you can't edit it, which isn't good at all. You have to understand the code to know where to go to edit it. We don't actually want to make it harder to edit, typically roster editing is taken care of more by non-regulars so making it harder is not really something we want to do unless we want to lose all the work they do instead of capitalizing on it. Roster templates atleast have an edit header so they can edit the roster from any page they are on. And a change of one page can break the other page without the editor actually realizing another page was changing by something they did. Simple example is changing a section header. Whereas, by having the template separate with the word template big at the top of the page, it makes it clear this is something that is probably changing multiple pages. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The roster templates were introduced to help unify them to one central location incase they were being used across several different Wikipedia pages. This unnecessary change could cause a desynchronization of info if the roster is being used in multiple instances. I also fear that allowing the rosters to be directly editable from the main team page will only encourage boneheads to type misinformation about a roster. (saint0wen (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC))

@Saint0wen: If you are disagreeing with the AHL roster template merges, then synchronization is not an issue because they have only been used on the team pages for years (as I stated before, the team season pages were never kept updated, so I redirected them, and that would be the only other place they were used). The NHL ones will probably be kept, if only because they are almost always going to be on 3 pages at any given time. As for "boneheads to type misinformation" comment, are you referring to your summary here? Because if you are, I'm afraid to say that the content there was merged unedited direct from the former AHL roster template and not terribly different than the state it was in the last time you edited the roster with only yourself and a dedicated roster editor (@Triggerbit:) keeping any updates on it per the edit history. In this case, having the roster be more visible for editing could have actually helped keep it up to date as inexperienced editors would have easier to find access for good faith edits to the roster. Yosemiter (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Individual player Stanley Cup acknowledgement

This probably gets asked every year but does a player just need to appear in just 1 game with the Championship team during the regular season to be considered a Stanley Cup Champion and noted in their own Awards and Honors section? ..for example with the Blues, does Chris Thorburn get to include the honor?

I'm curious at what point since other sources such as Eliteprospects haven't acknowledged the likes of Thorburn, Jordan Nolan (14 regular season games), or even Jordan Schmaltz (20 games played), yet recognize MacKenzie MacEachern (29 games), who also falls short of having his named engraved on the cup and didn't feature in the playoffs..

any clarity would be appreciated! Triggerbit (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

We follow the same as inscription on the cup

Must have played, or have dressed as the backup goaltender, for at least half of the championship team's regular season games. OR:

Must have played, or have dressed as the backup goaltender, for at least one game of the Stanley Cup Finals for the championship team, AND:

Must be on the roster when the team wins the Stanley Cup.. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic Division

The article Atlantic Division (NHL), should be split into two separate articles. The division of 1993-2013, is obviously different from the current division, in terms of membership. Only the name is the same. Planning on doing the dividing sometime soon. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It is still the same division, the teams just changed in the realignment just like any other realignment, only this time it was a lot of teams. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Same name, different division. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The division is the name. --DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Different division, though. Seeing as we both aren't going to agree on this. Others will need to chime in. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think it's different? I can point to the NHL treating them as the same in press releases. I am curious what has you so insistent they are different? --DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The Northeast became the new Atlantic. The original Atlantic became the Metropolitan. You can't see that?? GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Except it's also made up of teams from other divisions as well. It wasn't a simple rename. The NHL specifically said they were moving to the Atlantic division. They didnt say the NE was being renamed. --DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems we're not going to agree on this. Best to let others chime in. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with DJ here. We don't write separate articles for teams just because they change ownership, management or rosters. It's a good deal less confusing to just address the changes in the article. Ravenswing 20:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we then continue to point out the differences, throughout related articles? GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

NHL divisions, since 2013

Why are we listing the most recent standings, in the current divisions of the NHL? It serves no purpose, unless we want to list 'every' season standings. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes we do because it's highly likely a person going to that page is looking for the standings. It is the whole reason we have the standings templates. So they can be used on multiple pages like these ones. --DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't I agree that they'd go to those articles looking for the standings, but they would be looking for a list of teams in the division. Listing them with the most recent standings seems to be the best option.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about women hockey players who lag far behind men on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Palm Springs AHL team

Similar to how we handled the Las Vegas and Seattle NHL expansion bids, is Palm Springs AHL team a WP:TOOSOON creation? They have filed for expansion, but it probably won't get mentioned again until the league votes on it in the midseason meetings in Dec 2019 or Jan 2020. The filing is already mentioned in the history section of the American Hockey League article, and outside of the bits about the proposed arena, there is nothing else yet. Seems to fail WP:GNG right now due to WP:NOTNEWS announcements without WP:SUSTAINED coverage. So should I draftify, redirect, or nominate for deletion until it does meet? I mean, it seems like it would be a lock, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL and all. Yosemiter (talk)

Yeah I would redirect to the section that already talks about it. If it hasn't already been approved then the article is too soon. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

PM800's IDHT habits

I'm having trouble with @PM800: on some articles. He's refusing to discuss anything, merely reverts & doesn't use his 'edit summaries'. I'm not sure if it's a WP:OWN problem at 2019-20 Washington Capitals season or a WP:STALK problem at that article & Template:Tampa Bay Lightning roster article. But his lack of communication skills, combined with his tendency to edit war? is frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

His communication is definitely horrible. His edit to the Capitals season page however is reasonable, that section is listing the alternate captains, and the only one right now is Backstrom. Adding TBD is redundant and confusing to readers. He was however, wrong on the roster template changes. -DJSasso (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)